JIABS Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 29 Number 1 2006 (2008) The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (ISSN 0193-600XX) is the organ of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Inc. It welcomes scholarly contributions pertaining to all facets of Buddhist Studies. EDITORIAL BOARD JIABS is published twice yearly, in the summer and winter. KELLNER Birgit Manuscripts should preferably be sub- KRASSER Helmut mitted as e-mail attachments to: Joint Editors [email protected] as one single file, complete with footnotes and references, BUSWELL Robert in two different formats: in PDF-format, and in Rich-Text-Format (RTF) or Open- CHEN Jinhua Document-Format (created e.g. by Open COLLINS Steven Office). COX Collet GÓMEZ Luis O. Address books for review to: HARRISON Paul JIABS Editors, Institut für Kultur - und Geistesgeschichte Asiens, Prinz-Eugen- VON HINÜBER Oskar Strasse 8-10, AT-1040 Wien, AUSTRIA JACKSON Roger JAINI Padmanabh S. Address subscription orders and dues, KATSURA Shōryū changes of address, and UO business correspondence K Li-ying (including advertising orders) to: LOPEZ, Jr. Donald S. Dr Jérôme Ducor, IABS Treasurer MACDONALD Alexander Dept of Oriental Languages and Cultures SCHERRER-SCHAUB Cristina Anthropole SEYFORT RUEGG David University of Lausanne CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland SHARF Robert email: [email protected] STEINKELLNER Ernst Web: www.iabsinfo.net TILLEMANS Tom Fax: +41 21 692 30 45 ZÜRCHER Erik Subscriptions to JIABS are USD 40 per year for individuals and USD 70 per year for libraries and other institutions. For informations on membership in IABS, see back cover. Cover: Cristina Scherrer-Schaub Font: “Gandhari Unicode” designed by Andrew Glass (http://andrewglass.org/ fonts.php) © Copyright 2008 by the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Inc. Print: Ferdinand Berger & Söhne GesmbH, A-3580 Horn JIABS Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 29 Number 1 2006 (2008) Jikido TAKASAKI, Between translation and interpretation – Cases in the Chinese Tripižaka – (Presidential address at the XIVth Conference of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, London, August 29 – September 3, 2005) .............. 3 • Ben BROSE Crossing thousands of Li of waves: The return of China’s lost Tiantai texts .......................................... 21 William CHU Syncretism reconsidered: The Four Eminent Monks and their syncretistic styles ..................................... 43 Johan ELVERSKOG The Mongolian Big Dipper Sūtra ............................ 87 Juhyung RHI Fasting Buddhas, Lalitavistara, and KaruŘāpuŘĞarīka ........ 125 Martin SEEGER The Bhikkhunī-ordination controversy in Thailand ............ 155 • Notes on the contributors ................................. 185 THE MONGOLIAN BIG DIPPER SŪTRA JOHAN ELVERSKOG Introduction Ever since the European discovery of Buddhism and the subsequent development of Buddhist Studies, there has been an intense focus on “the text” and its implied notions of authority. The origins of this methodological propensity and its ramifications are now rather well-known, and many scholars have begun to re-evaluate previous categories that shaped the trajectory of this textual criticism. One such category is the entire concept of the “canon” and its tandem concepts of “apocryphal,” “authentic” and ultimately “true/pure” – elements that have shaped both Buddhist and academic discourse.1 In much the same way as East Asian Buddhists produced graded hierar- chies of the Buddha’s Dharma, scholars have produced graded scales of value towards the “canons” that allow them access to the Dharma. The Pali and Chinese canons (as well as the Tibetan, depending on the topic) are recognized as essential and authoritative, while the Tangut, Mongol and Manchu canons are relegated to the category of secondary or tertiary importance. It also needs to be recognized, however, that any intellectual mapping has an agenda and that it pro- duces aporias with inevitable implications. In the case of Zhiyi 智顗 and his Tiantai 天台 tradition, the result of this “theological”/intel- lectual engagement with the Dharma was the elevation of the Lotus Sūtra to the pinnacle of the Buddha’s teachings, a development with profound consequences for the history of the Buddhist tradition. While it is unlikely that the contemporary scholarly evaluation of the Buddhist canon will have as much impact as did Zhiyi, it is still necessary for scholars of Buddhist history to continually interrogate 1 For a valuable introduction to issues surrounding the problem of Buddhist “canon(s)” see Buswell, and more recently Freiberger. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Volume 29 • Number 1 • 2006 (2008) pp. 87–123 88 JOHAN ELVERSKOG our own canonical categorizations, in particular how they potentially repress or distort the historical development of the Buddhist tradi- tion. It is with this aim in mind that I present the following transla- tion of the Mongolian Big Dipper Sūtra with a discussion of its theoretical and historical implications. Overview of scholarship and translation history This translation is based on the text of the Big Dipper Sūtra as found in the Kanjur, the Mongolian translation of the Tibetan bKa’-’gyur (the collected teachings of the Buddha), with reference to two manu- script copies housed in the Inner Mongolian Academy of Social Sci- ences.2 This is not the first translation of this Buddhist sūtra. Scho- lars have paid close attention to this work for nearly a century. The first, Berthold Laufer, noted in 1907 that according to the colophon of the Tibetan version of the sūtra it had been translated into Uygur, the Turkic language of northwest China. This claim was corrobo- rated when German expeditions in the Tarim Basin discovered thou- sands of fragments of Uygur Buddhist texts, several of which were in fact translations of the Big Dipper Sūtra. These fragments were subsequently published by the Turkologist G.R. Rachmati with the sinological commentary of Wolfram Eberhard (1937). Subsequently, these fragments, their history, relation to other translations, cultural implications, etc. have been the focus of numerous scholarly endea- vors,3 culminating in the magisterial study of Herbert Franke, who 2 This translation is based on Ligeti’s transcription (1963: 103–114) of the Mongolian Doluγan ebügen neretü odun-u sudur found in the Beijing Kanjur (vol. 92 No. 1123 [Ligeti 1942–44: 303]), in addition to two manuscripts housed in the Inner Mongolia Academy of Social Sciences, Hohhot, China (CMC #588 and 589 – 49.328 1403:1 and 49.328 1403:2). The two manuscripts do not differ in any substantial way from the Kanjur version, except that both lack the important colophon. There are no early extant Mongo- lian fragments from the Yuan period that would provide evidence of its translation history (Cerensodnam and Taube 1993), particularly the relation of the Mongol text to the Uygur fragments. Aside from the two manuscripts used in the preparation of this edition there are extant manuscript copies in the Mongolian collections in Copenhagen (Heissig 1971: 221), Germany (MHBL #287) and the library at the University of Inner Mongolia (CMC #590). 3 For a bibliography of studies on the Uygur fragments and related works, see Elverskog (1997: 93–95). THE MONGOLIAN BIG DIPPER SŪTRA 89 compared the Chinese, Tibetan, Uygur and Mongolian Buddhist ver- sions and showed their Daoist origins (1990). In the wake of his work, Jampa Panglung prepared an edition and translation of the Ti- betan version (1991).4 Henrik Sørensen translated a Korean ritual text for the worship of the Big Dipper and investigated the tradition in Korea (1995). And most recently Charles Orzech and James San- ford published three texts from the Chinese canon involved with the worship of the Big Dipper (2000). Value of new translations to scholarship Invariably, one may wonder what is the value of translating a secon- dary, or perhaps even tertiary, Mongolian text. Indeed, what is the point of exploring the Mongolian version of a work that was clearly produced in a Chinese cultural context and is found in the Chinese canon? A valid point. However, our own theoretical suppositions make such a conjecture valid. The primary such supposition is that the Chinese canon is of paramount historical importance (a claim ampli- fied in this case with reference to the Daoist borrowings of the work). As a result, it is generally taken for granted that the Chinese version contained in the Taishō canon is the “ur-text” and thus it is the reference point for all others.5 This may be true, but such an assumption is not without problems. Much may be lost in selecting a text produced in Japan,6 and found in a canon compiled in Japan dur- ing the 1920s over a text clearly produced in China and dated to the early 14th century. While this is a philological problem beyond the bounds of this paper, for our present concern, the modern focus on the Chinese canon and its perceived authority has had two ramifica- 4 The Tibetan text Sme-bdun zhes-bya-ba’i skar-ma’i mdo is found in the Peking bKa’-’gyur (Suzuki 1955–61: vol. 40, p. 370–372, P286b6–290a8). 5 This text (Fo shuo beidou qi xing yan ming jing 佛說北斗七星延命經) is found in vo- lume 21 of the Taishō shinshū daizō-kyō, T 1307: 425b–426b. 6 The canonical version in the Taishō includes a picture of the Big Dipper, the “Ladies of the Dipper” and the amulets corresponding to each star are labelled with a Japanese kana symbol (Orzech and Sanford 2000: 387). 90 JOHAN ELVERSKOG tions. First, it has obscured the simple fact that the Taishō text and the Mongolian sūtra are not the same, thus affecting our understand- ing of the development of this tradition. Second, the fixation on the “Chineseness” of Big Dipper worship has obviated the fact that this work was important among the Mongols, and thus has led us to ne- glect what this worship among the Mongols tells us about Mongolian Buddhism and the process by which new ideas and practices cross both religious and cultural boundaries.